THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN HAS DECLARED A STATE OF EMERGENCY FOR LGBT PEOPLE IN THE USA
Please watch this video by Rudy Riggs explaining it!
There is no ID on this atm, but I will add one tomorrow after I process this.
oh be quiet and stop bothering kids
A few Republican states: Stop pushing gender ideology onto our kids and putting porn in schools
HRC: THERE'S A STATE OF EMERGENCY IN THE US FOR LGBTs BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GROOM KIDS AND SHOW THEM PORN IN A FEW STATES!
LGBTs: OMG, yaaas! We should all flee to states where they let us groom kids and show them porn!
Normal people, gay and straight: o_O
All we have of freedom, all we use or know - This our fathers bought for us long and long ago.
- Rudyard Kipling, The Old Issue
At the American cemetery in Normandy, French caretakers will have collected sand from Omaha Beach and rubbed it into the gravestones to highlight the names of the departed.
They do this for all 9,388 soldiers who lay there.
ID in alt text. Here is the cited CDC survey. I'd appreciate people spreading this around as much as possible to help raise awareness.
Note: Rape being defined in a way that excludes being forced-to-penetrate is not universal. While that is the case in the UK (1 / 2), you should check your local laws to see what being forced to penetrate would be considered.
Resources:
RAINN / 1in6 / ManKind Initiative / SurvivorsUK / MaleSurvivor / Safeline
In reference to that last slide, see County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J. (1996):
Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities. A 34-year-old woman seduces a 15-year-old boy and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a daughter and thereafter applies for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Is the child's father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d).) We conclude he is liable for child support. [...] The law should not except Nathaniel J. from this responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones's criminal acts. After discussing the matter, he and Jones decided to have sexual relations. They had sexual intercourse approximately five times over a two-week period. In an action to impose vicarious liability upon a minor's parents, Cynthia M. v. Rodney E. (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 1040, 1045 [279 Cal. Rptr. 94], held a minor's consent to unlawful sexual intercourse was "a permissible consideration" in denying liability. "[T]here is an important distinction between a party who is injured through no fault of his or her own and an injured party who willingly participated in the offense about which a complaint is made." (Id., at pp. 1046-1047.) One who is injured as a result of criminal conduct in which he willingly participated is not a typical crime victim. (Id., at p. 1047, fn. 13.) It does not necessarily follow that a minor over the age of 14 who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is a victim of sexual abuse[*]. (Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 245, 261 [226 Cal. Rptr. 361].)
And, in this article about the case:
Clearly, said Roth, if a teenage boy got a teenage girl pregnant, no one would question the state for holding him responsible. She said the teenager's testimony made it clear he had known what he was doing and agreed to it. "I guess he thought he was a man then," she said. "Now, he prefers to be considered a child." [...] Until 1994, the state's statutory-rape law didn't even apply to boys; only adults who had sex with young girls could be prosecuted. The legislature changed the law two years ago, but prosecutions of women are rare, Mason said.
* btw, they have also ruled that the victim of statuotry rape is required to pay child support when the victim was a 12-13 year old. The argument here is "the conceived child is a victim, too, and since you wanted someone far older than you to sleep with you, you aren't totally a victim." In my opinion, the state should pay the child support and not make the victim responsible for being fucking groomed by someone who had the responsibility to say no.
This is patriarchy btw. Just in case anyone reading this needs a reminder of the root problem here. The motivating factor beneath this is that being forced to penetrate, specifically by someone with a vagina perceived as a woman, is inherently less traumatizing. People perceived as young boys can't be groomed- they wanted it, and the woman? Well, she basically had nothing to do with it. The man is always the pursuer and the woman is always the object being pursued- a woman couldn't groom a young boy in the same way a man could groom a young girl, because men are horny predators while women are romantic prey. Misogyny & toxic masculinity lead people to view victims of being forced-penetrate as whiny & irresponsible, complaining about nothing- sure, the entire reason statutory rape laws exist are to protect children from being taken advantage of, but when its a boy, well... he was a horny teen (which girls can never be- they can only feel fluffy romantic emotions, teen girls never just wanna get off), and boys don't get traumatized by sex with girls.
Boys are only "boys" or "innocent" when it benefits the patriarchy (for example, the infantilization of violent white men, where it serves to protect white supremacist patriarchy from criticism). When it doesn't- when someone perceived as a man failing to Be A Man, or when its a marginalized man who needs to be "put in his place," then men are incapable of victimhood or innocence.
>This is patriarchy btw
How, exactly?
According to common feminist claims, The Patriarchy is about men having most societal power, which they will inevatably use to privilege and benefit men and boys over women and girls. On social and legal levels.
Feminists have specifically argued that when society ignores or rewards female victims that accuse male rapists and sexual assailants, it's male privilege and sexism against women, and part of the Patriarchy.
This case seems like the exact opposite.
> The motivating factor beneath this is that being forced to penetrate, specifically by someone with a vagina perceived as a woman, is inherently less traumatizing. People perceived as young boys can't be groomed- they wanted it, and the woman? Well, she basically had nothing to do with it.
I really think it's because society says "it's not really rape when a woman does it it, or a man/boy is the victim. Or both." Whether the victim is forced to penetrate or not.
Note that the "mother" in this case was already convicted, yet she still won child support. I find it odd that you didn't mention that part.
Even when the law and System explicitly says "what this woman did to this child was wrong", it will still turn around and try to get CS from her victim.
You seem to be viewing this through a lens of "women are the real victims", even when they have clear privileges.
You never actually use the term "sexism" or "misandry". Why is that? Why do you use "misogyny", but only "toxic masculinity" for men, which implies it's all or mostly men's fault?
Oh boy! The exact person I made this addition to ward off!
Well, first of all, I am a transfeminist. I would define the patriarchy as a social system which exists to control gender/sex relations, for the benefit of cisgender, heterosexual men– although it can’t be understood without the context of other social systems (like white supremacy and capitalism). These systems work together as the kyriarchy to preserve the power and wealth of a few at the cost of the many. On my blog, I’ve written extensively how I believe men are negatively impacted by the patriarchy on a deep and intrinsic level, and that I believe that the patriarchy cannot be properly unworked unless we acknowledge this aspect. “Common feminist claims” do not mean every feminist makes those claims as you understand them.
Yes, I would say in general woman perpetrators are not seen as “real” perpetrators, and men/boys are not seen as “real” victims. I focused on penetration because I feel its fundamental to why being forced-to-penetrate is especially ignored, despite it being the most common form of rape experienced by cis men. Men/boys being sodomized is more easily seen as an act of violation– even if it frequently mocked and seen as demeaning– because being penetrated is seen as inherently dominating. Its easier to convince people, especially feminist-minded people, that a boy who was sodomized is a victim than it is to convince them a boy who was forced to penetrate is. Penetration is seen as being something which always takes, even if being “taken from” is seen as demeaning. And this is entirely because penetration is inherently gendered in the patriarchal view: to penetrate is to be male (& the patriarchy views the only “true” men, deserving of value, as those who perform dominant manhood effectively) and to be penetrated is to be female. So forced-to-penetrate rape is the form of sexual assault to men most easily written off because it flies in the face of how the patriarchy views sexual power dynamics.
I don’t see what me not mentioning her being convicted has to do with anything? I clearly find this woman disgusting and think its horrific that she was able to force her victim to pay child support when she groomed him. We agree entirely on this point. There's no point to bringing this up except that you want me to be supporting this woman when clearly am not. You assume I think “women are the real victims” because you are opposed to any analysis of gender that points to the patriarchy instead of women. In that way, you are actually very similar to the feminists who call me and MRA for saying that the patriarchy should not be synonymous with “men,” especially individual men.
I later elaborated in this post:
In the case of a man being seen as a victim of being forced-to-penetrate, its more beneficial to paint the woman as an object for the pursuing young boy, and then paint any arguments that he is a victim as being unreasonable and irresponsible. In this case, the woman is objectified but in a way that benefits her because it benefits the patriarchy first and foremost. Similarly, the patriarchy only cares about cis male victims when it is beneficial to itself (as a part of kyriarchy which is fundamentally concerned w material power/wealth and control to maintain that power/wealth), and that "care" is extremely superficial.
I very, very frequently talk about the view of women as perpetual victims is
- the way that privileged women (specifically white & cis but in this case, also woman predators) are able to get away with violence, and
- that this is the result of misogyny. Women are perpetual victims because they are seen as property, something that exists only to be protected, like sheep. White women have power via victimhood because the white-patriarchy needs them to produce white children, which is why Black women don't have access to that victimhood. (Additionally, the idea that women don't want sex/aren't as horny/invested in sex as men is why more focus is put on a young boy's "choice" in being groomed than the grown woman's choice to groom him. That's also misogyny).
I think the way we use “privilege” has a lot of flaws, perhaps the biggest being that it’s extremely vague and is applied to a lot of different situations. You could apply “privilege” to what happened with this woman, but I think its far better to call it benevolent misogyny (which avoids implying that “female privilege” as a mirror for “male privilege” is a thing– and, for the record, I have a lot of issues with how “male privilege” is used by cisfeminism, and I don’t think “female privilege” as a term would cause anything but problems). On a very individual level, she was privileged here, but not because The System Loves Women And Hates Men. It’s because of misogyny, which comes from the patriarchy.
I actually do use “misandry” to describe this situation– also “antimasculism.” I think either one of these words is useful when discussing how the patriarchy negatively affects men & those perceived as men. I would love to be able to say “this is the result of misandry” and have people understand that I mean “this is the result of patriarchal gender roles & how they affect men.” But because of people like you, using that word immediately makes people go on defense mode and assume I am blaming women for the workings of the patriarchy, so I have to use imperfect phrases like “toxic masculinity” to try and get my message out there. Thanks a lot.
TL;DR: we fundamentally agree that what happened in this case is bad and that the woman got away with it because of gender dyanmics. But you have piss-poor interpretation of those dynamics, and would rather ignore the way cis men can benefit from the patriarchy so you can blame women. You essentially take the shittiest of feminist perspectives– the surface level, pop-feminist “patriarchy is when people don’t like women and like men” that I have major issues with– and swap it around and act like you’ve done something. All you do is make it 10000x harder for us to properly deal with misandry, because you make it all about “women get favored in child custody cases!!” (which, btw, is also a product of misogyny) instead of how the patriarchy wants men to suffer. The only solution to all this gender suffering is cis men, cis women, trans people, and everyone outside or in-between working together, combined anti-racist, anti-classist, anti-oppressive action. You can't get there unless you stop blaming women and start blaming the patriarchy (neither can feminists get there unless they do the same with men!)
Okay.
I think I'll drop it now.
@genderkoolaid
Your appraisal is mostly word-salad and seems to bend and twist around to try, desperately, to make it about the patriarchy.
The patriarchy does not exist anymore.
*Perhaps* we once had once, but it was a pretty ineffective one since it managed to keep seeing women into power.
The fact that women can vote, can own property, can live on their own, can generally do as they please means there is no patriarchy.
Period.
I was raped by an evil woman when I was young and you, in your disgusting, radical socialist/feminist GALL come in here and try to brush off responsibility from her and every other female rapist by twisting and contorting the truth until you have the conclusion you wanted to happen, not what actually did.
What the hell is it about Leftists and this aversion to responsibility?
fuck around and find out
Here's a better shot of this book
MIDDLE SCHOOL teacher recommends book teaching MIDDLE SCHOOLERS how to use apps to meet adults for sex.
So thankful for active and involved parents that put up a fuss.
Remember folks, this isn't actually happening. And we are oppressing gay people by not giving some of them access to children.
*This is sarcasm*
this would hold water if only for the tricky little fact that my straight sex ed back in the was strictly about reproductive parts and functions, and contained zero information whatsoever about consent or pleasure or any other fun stuff. we werent taught how to have sex, really only that tab A in slot B makes babies
See that's the play. It's a perpetual game of "The big ask" except in this case it's not an ask. It's a assertion made as fact, people partially resonate with that "fact" either due to misplaced acceptance or misremembering, which creates a shitstorm leading to others going; "Yes that is in fact what happened. And because of A you should be forced to accept B". Sex education in schools is not about pleasure, it's not about kink, it's not about types of consent.
All we typically get, like you said, is "this is a diagram of the inside workings of a penis. This is the inside workings of a vagina. Tab A goes in Slot B (no mention of other places tab A can go at all because of course not) and if circumstances line up, BAM! You have babies. But this point in the book is grossly glossed over because of course it is. Sex Ed is about teaching the semantics of procreation. Not anything else. Where as gay sex of any kind is STRICTLY for pleasure. Which is not the point of sex ed.
And if they were teaching pleasure based stuff about sex at 10 I'D FULLY expect teachers to be trampled or lose their lives. I'm not advocating for that. I'm saying that it would likely happen. Also in the US we don't get sex ed until we are around 14-15. Because let's be honest. 10 y/os should NOT be having sex. And if they were taught about it in a "this feels good" way, more kids WOULD try it. And we don't want that. There's a huge reason we avoid it. And that's why.
I didn't even go ever anything other than stuff like periods by the time I was ten at my school. I don't think sex ed covered how it worked physically until I was 13 and even then it was never in detail or about pleasure. It's just an outright lie from where I'm standing.
I wasn't even searching for the second one. It just came up.
Now, maybe I'm a puritan, but I don't think people should be talking about casual Grindr sex like it's just tee-hee "sexyfuntime" to young people of any sexual preference or gender orientation.
But at least there's some basic precautions recommended.
Also, according to other results, this is the 9th most-banned book in America.
Anonymous asked:
I'm wondering if any of you Trumptards know that back in Lincoln's day Republicans were Liberal and Democrats were the Conservative Party.
Lincoln was a tyrant and got what he deserved.
And the Party Switch myth is a myth. ONE guy switched parties.
Don’t talk history to me, laddie. And don’t ascribe me a follower of any personality cult.
Anonymous asked:
Lol, fair enough. Hmm.... What would you say is your guiltiest pleasure?
Fudge XuX
Anonymous asked:
To Kira: seeing how active you are Little cheetah. Have you ever been fat or can gain weight?
Kira: Ummmmmm…… >_>;;;;
Anonymous asked:
*hugs* hey, if you've been busy, im sorry if i seemed impatient with responses. If it's something i said or anybody else has said, i hope it doesn't ruin the fun for you bud. Your are a cool wolf and a great friend to many who know you on a personal level. Hope you are well and hope things are going ok.
Thank you, bud ^_^
*Hug*
Who would you say are the top 5 characters that were most influential when you were creating Aries?
-Aries-
Aeryn Sun - A mercenary her entire adult life whose closest friends are renegades, eccentrics and scofflaws. Tough as nails, no-nonsense and is HORRIBLE at expressing her more intimate and guarded feelings. (Aries voice claim)
Hercules - Who at one point did the unthinkable and broke into Hell to save souls wrongfully interred and whose many heroics have arose because people in power have tried to get her killed by way of 'impossible' missions.
Zorro - Hailing from a noble line, an undisputed master of swordfighting and regarded as a hero by working class folk. Blames herself for every life she can't save.
Baiken Seishino - Covered in scars, orphaned too young and bitter about it. She is extremely resourceful and tends to sneak up on the radar of people who really should know better. Vengeful and more than willing to act on it and hides her deep self-loathing with alcohol and a devil-may-care attitude.
Anastasia Nikolaevna (Legend thereof) - "But one little girl got away!" The Noble who managed to escape the systematic and thorough extermination of her entire family. Self-determined, headstrong and has minimal patience for BS but in spite of her rough and tumble nature cleans up very, very nicely.
Charlie B. Barkin' - Through a series of choices made with sober mind, is irreversibly damned to Hell's deepest, darkest reaches. Haunted by visions of damnation wherein she's tortured and punished, is too focused on her goals to pay attention to this doom hanging over her head.
Are you more of a Ratchet and Clank or Jak and Daxter guy?
Ratchet and Clank all the way!
Anonymous asked:
You want sources as to Trump wanting to recognize Crimea as Russia? Here goes;
July 31, 2016 AP news quoted him as saying that Crimea should be recognized as part of Russia
August 1, 2016 Radio Free Europe wrote about what Trump said. "
The Republican candidate for U.S. president, Donald Trump, has said that, if elected, he would consider recognizing Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.
"I'm going to take a look at it," Trump said in an interview broadcast on July 31 on the U.S. television program This Week. "But you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that, also."
September 7, 2016 Politico wrote about what Trump said.
Donald Trump said Wednesday that, if he is elected president, he would consider recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and lifting the sanctions against Russia.
At a wide-ranging news conference, Trump said he “would be looking into that” when asked about his stance on Crimea and Russia. The Crimean Peninsula has been part of Ukraine for decades, but Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed the territory in March 2014 after a popular revolt toppled Kiev’s pro-Russian government.
Do your research asshole! Trump admires Putin. That means he's a fucking traitor and should be hung.
Goodness, someone’s Big Mad.
Here’s a question for you that involves actual, tangible evidence and not just cherry picked snippets of Mainstream malfeasance:
If Trump really was a Russian asset, why the hell would Putin wait until he was *out* of office to invade?
You're not making any sense and you’re just trying to justify the hate boner the media instructed you to have for him.
If there’s one thing I like about your character Aries, it’s the fact that she’s a badass mercenary and hero while also having traditionally feminine interests like wanting to eventually settle down with someone and start a family. It’s pretty refreshing in a modern media landscape where every female character has to ape masculine traits in order to be considered “cool”.
It's funny...
I originally created her as a counter to the 'impossibly perfect femme fatale' stereotype of the 00's.
Had no idea how ahead of her time she was, really XuX;;
But yeah, tough as she is, she's never lost touch with her feminine nature.
She years for the normal life she was denied, in her heart of hearts, and she's willing to fight to make it so.
And because, at least in the Azerian Timeline, she managed to get married and have two kids, Oriana and Lex, she found that peace at last. (Pictured here with their childhood friends-turned-SOs, Eshoq and Na'eema, Zucca and Raven's kids)
And even better, in that timeline, she redeemed her soul too...
And with that redemption, she truly well and mellowed out, becoming the steel magnolia she aspired to be when she was little. Walk softly yet carry a big stick.
And she *really* rocks the Mom Bod...
If you had access to one power/magic system from fiction, what would it be and why?
Mage: The Awakening.
Virtually no limit to what I can do, given time, experience and practice.
Just as long as nobody sees it in action, I won't suffer Reality Dysfunction feedback.
Since it's been a while
To Aries: have you ever tried chocolate combos? Examples are chocolate covered fruits, peanut butter and chocolate etc
"Oh yeah! Cocoa beans aren't toxic to canis Rathi (Thank the Everlord for that...) and I think my favorite is milk chocolate covered krio nuts! The closest Earth equivalent is Macadamia, as I understand. And get some wine involved... MMMM..."